This argument usually comes from the misunderstanding of the scientific perspective. I will go into Pond soup, nothing and monkeys as 3 of the versions brought up most frequently.

+

These arguments usually come from the misunderstanding of the [[science]]. They are examples of [[Straw man]] arguments.

−

1: Pond soup - This refers to the theory of [[Abiogenesis]] which generally is interpreted as a small pond wherein amino acids are formed with electricity, most probably from lightning. This claim isn't as absurd as some of the other ones around yet is still relatively wrong. There is nothing about soup in abiogenesis, and if queried further, the intellect of the [[theist]] (presumably) will become apparent. Abiogenesis explains a theory of how life came to be, not the universe (for clarification).

+

===We came from Pond soup===

−

2: Nothing - It is plainly wrong to say that [[evolution]] or abiogenesis or even the [[big bang]] suddenly happened with no cause and nothing before it. That notion is obviously flawed and only serves as a [[straw man]] argument, known to be used by [[apologist]]s such as [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Kirk Cameron]] in an episode of 'The way of the master', a tv series hosted by the two. When the argument is used, it is usually used flippantly, without real understanding. During the big bang there was presupposing matter and energy before the singularity. Abiogenesis is the formation of life and does not have 'nothing' involved and evolution explains the diversity of life, and again, no reference to 'nothing'.

+

This refers to the theory of [[Abiogenesis]] which generally is interpreted as a small pond wherein amino acids are formed with electricity, most probably from lightning. This claim isn't as absurd as some of the other ones around, yet is still relatively wrong. There is nothing about soup in abiogenesis, and if queried further, the intellect of the [[theist]] (presumably) will become apparent. Abiogenesis explains a theory of how life came to be, not the universe (for clarification).

−

3: Monkeys/Apes - This version of the argument refers to evolution. In particular, the evolution of the human race. A common misconception about evolution is that we evolved from the monkeys and apes we see today. This ignorance led to the argument of 'if we evolved from monkeys and apes then why are there still monkeys and apes?'. In reality, we ''didn't'' evolve from monkeys ''or'' apes. Humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor, one that branched off to form a hierarchy of species of which we are included in. What Creationists seem to not grasp (or flat-out refuse to accept) is that there are indeed things called '''''species''''' and they evolve to the left and to the right, not just in a straight line. There are numerous branches within the subspecies. There are approximately 5,400 known species of mammals on the planet which all arose and flourished after the reptiles were decimated by the presumed comet or asteroid that impacted the earth some 65 million years ago; the earliest known precursors to mice, opossums, and other marsupials were the largest mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Paleocene, and the primates arose from that point out into separate directions, left, right and forward. But some of these species hit a dead end and others didn't; some were viable. The Great Apes are a prime example of this and there are between 300 and 400 living species of primates on earth. This particular argument of 'if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?' can be reformed to 'If America was colonized by Europeans then why are there still Europeans?'. An equally dimwitted question to the theist question would probably be 'if Adam came from dirt why do we still have dirt?' This rewording shows precisely the falsehood of the argument.

+

===We came from dirt/rock/clay===

+

+

This also refers to the theory of [[Abiogenesis]], life originating from non-living material. If the theist is a Biblical literalist, it's worth pointing out that the book of Genesis says that God made man from dirt.

+

+

===We came from Nothing===

+

+

Typically, this version is in reference to the [[Big bang]]. This notion is known to be used by [[apologist]]s such as [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Kirk Cameron]] in an episode of 'The way of the master', a tv series hosted by the two. When the argument is used, it is usually used flippantly, without real understanding. At the Big bang, there was matter and energy before, as a singularity. Since science does not yet have any answers about what happened "before" the Big bang, the intellectually honest position taken by most [[atheist]]s is that we ''don't know''. For some reason, the Big bang is often misinterpreted as a "something from nothing" proposition. Some physicists, such as [[Victor Stenger]], have some ideas how this may be the case, however, for the moment, it's speculation.

+

+

Abiogenesis and [[Evolution]] are also occasionally misunderstood to be "something from nothing" concepts.

+

+

===We came from Monkeys/Apes===

+

+

This version of the argument refers to evolution; in particular, the evolution of the [[human]] race. A common misconception about evolution is that we evolved from the [[monkeys]] and [[apes]] we see today. This ignorance led to the argument of, "'''If we evolved from monkeys and apes, then why are there still monkeys and apes?'''".

+

+

Part of the difficulty of this issue is definitional. "Monkeys" and "Apes" are families in the evolutionary tree. Modern ''[[Homo sapiens]]'' are in the "Great Ape" family (also known as [[Hominidae]]), alongside several other species, such as gorillas and chimpanzees. With this general classification, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was also within an ape family, but that common ancestor species is now gone, having ultimately split into modern humans and chimpanzees. Colloquially, "monkey" is thought to be a specific species, but technically, it isn't.

+

+

We didn't evolve from any '''modern''' monkeys or apes. Modern humans, monkeys and apes evolved from different common ancestors that branched off to form a tree of species, in different families, in which we are included. What [[Creationist]]s are incorrect about is that species branch apart, typically due to geological separation, and not merely in a straight line. It's a common misconception that evolution is a '''ladder''', when in fact, it's a '''tree'''.

+

+

There are approximately 5,400 known species of mammals on the planet, which all arose and flourished after the reptiles were decimated by the apparent comet or asteroid that impacted the earth some 65 million years ago. The earliest known precursors to mice, opossums, and other marsupials were the largest mammals in the late [[Cretaceous]] and early [[Paleocene]], and the primates arose from that point out into separate directions. Some of these species hit a dead end and others didn't. Some were viable and survived. After humans and chimpanzees broke away from their common anscestor, several species of hominids arose in the ''[[Homo]]'' genus, such as ''[[Homo erectus]]'', ''[[Homo neanderthalensis]]'' and ''[[Homo sapiens]]''. Out of the those 9 species, only one avoided extinction: ''Homo sapiens'' (humans).

+

+

The following questions mirror the understanding/logic of this argument:

+

* If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

+

* If I came from cousins, why do cousins still exist?

+

+

Further reading:

+

* Chart answering "[http://monicks.net/2012/06/23/evolution/ If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?]"

+

+

+

{{Common objections}}

+

+

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

+

[[Category:Creationism]]

Revision as of 23:44, 23 June 2012

These arguments usually come from the misunderstanding of the science. They are examples of Straw man arguments.

Contents

We came from Pond soup

This refers to the theory of Abiogenesis which generally is interpreted as a small pond wherein amino acids are formed with electricity, most probably from lightning. This claim isn't as absurd as some of the other ones around, yet is still relatively wrong. There is nothing about soup in abiogenesis, and if queried further, the intellect of the theist (presumably) will become apparent. Abiogenesis explains a theory of how life came to be, not the universe (for clarification).

We came from dirt/rock/clay

This also refers to the theory of Abiogenesis, life originating from non-living material. If the theist is a Biblical literalist, it's worth pointing out that the book of Genesis says that God made man from dirt.

We came from Nothing

Typically, this version is in reference to the Big bang. This notion is known to be used by apologists such as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in an episode of 'The way of the master', a tv series hosted by the two. When the argument is used, it is usually used flippantly, without real understanding. At the Big bang, there was matter and energy before, as a singularity. Since science does not yet have any answers about what happened "before" the Big bang, the intellectually honest position taken by most atheists is that we don't know. For some reason, the Big bang is often misinterpreted as a "something from nothing" proposition. Some physicists, such as Victor Stenger, have some ideas how this may be the case, however, for the moment, it's speculation.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are also occasionally misunderstood to be "something from nothing" concepts.

We came from Monkeys/Apes

This version of the argument refers to evolution; in particular, the evolution of the human race. A common misconception about evolution is that we evolved from the monkeys and apes we see today. This ignorance led to the argument of, "If we evolved from monkeys and apes, then why are there still monkeys and apes?".

Part of the difficulty of this issue is definitional. "Monkeys" and "Apes" are families in the evolutionary tree. Modern Homo sapiens are in the "Great Ape" family (also known as Hominidae), alongside several other species, such as gorillas and chimpanzees. With this general classification, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was also within an ape family, but that common ancestor species is now gone, having ultimately split into modern humans and chimpanzees. Colloquially, "monkey" is thought to be a specific species, but technically, it isn't.

We didn't evolve from any modern monkeys or apes. Modern humans, monkeys and apes evolved from different common ancestors that branched off to form a tree of species, in different families, in which we are included. What Creationists are incorrect about is that species branch apart, typically due to geological separation, and not merely in a straight line. It's a common misconception that evolution is a ladder, when in fact, it's a tree.

There are approximately 5,400 known species of mammals on the planet, which all arose and flourished after the reptiles were decimated by the apparent comet or asteroid that impacted the earth some 65 million years ago. The earliest known precursors to mice, opossums, and other marsupials were the largest mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Paleocene, and the primates arose from that point out into separate directions. Some of these species hit a dead end and others didn't. Some were viable and survived. After humans and chimpanzees broke away from their common anscestor, several species of hominids arose in the Homo genus, such as Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. Out of the those 9 species, only one avoided extinction: Homo sapiens (humans).

The following questions mirror the understanding/logic of this argument: